Purchased Fake Chromecast from Dick Smith

I did a dumb thing.

I bought a Chromecast from Dick Smith without realising that it is a fake until the package arrived.

Of course, they don't have a phone number or email to contact them on. I'm not sure if they will take it back. I feel scammed. It didn't occur to me that if it didn't say Google Chromecast it was going to be some dodgy copy from China.

I haven't opened the package, what should I do?

Related Stores

Dick Smith / Kogan
Dick Smith / Kogan


  • +1

    I never bought anything from DS, so can't help you there.

    From google, you can report it, not sure how far they'll help https://support.google.com/store/answer/9096512?hl=en

    • +1

      Does everyone know DS is just rebadged Kogan. He also runs a homewares shop under Matt Black name which is also just rebranded Kogan. Just return it if you believe it to be fake.

  • +8

    I'm sorry but this is on you. It's clearly fake photo and shape and specs are wrong in the photo.

    • +7

      Terms & Conditions
      Sold and delivered by Shenzhen Elephant Electronic Commerce Co. Ltd.

      How could that not be legit?

      • +1


    • It says Chromecast in the url, and title.

  • +3

    Dick Smith is owned by Kogan so it'll be a Grey Import and the chances of getting any customer service from Kogan's is SFA.

    • How low from Kogan. Shadow copy of Aliexpress.

      • +1

        Except it wasn't sold by Kogan themselves. Rather a third party seller. Since AliExpress and ebay are marketplace.

      • +1

        Nothing new about Kogan here. Any way to extract a dollar using any means, including knock grey imports and fakes.

        Not a fan of these guys at all to say the least.

    • +2

      It's not even a grey import - it's their wannabe Amazon/eBay that everyone is jumping on top of these days…

      Sold by Crazyshopping
      This item is located outside Australia

      Kogan's terms are pretty clear on the product page, if OP bothered to look…

      This product is sold by a third party Marketplace Seller.
      For Warranty claims, this product is covered by the Kogan Guarantee.
      For products sold by a Marketplace Seller, if the Seller hasn’t provided a satisfactory resolution within 3 days, please lodge a dispute resolution request here, and will take care of it from there applying the standards in the Kogan Customer Charter.

      So much like eBay - contact the seller; eBay Kogan will get involved if the proposed resolution is non-existant or unsatisfactory, if you contact them.

  • +14

    It's on the page, scroll down to "Warranty and Returns". Seriously, start actually reading the pages you buy stuff off, not only is it clearly a fake product but it clearly explains how to contact the seller and ask for a refund.

    • It says Chromecast in the name.

    • it clearly a fake product

      It's not actually a fake product. It is a different product to what the OP wanted.

      It's like saying a kia is a fake car just because you really want a bmw.

      • Sure, if Kia called it a BMW 3 Series and made it look like the real thing.

        Look at the page, it's called a Chromecast and is meant to imitate the real thing. It's a pretty terrible imitation that anyone should have caught on to, but it's clearly trying to imitate another product.

        • It's am imitation, not a replica. Computers all look fundamentally the same, but they're not. Washing machines and fridges look similar, but there are many differences. No difference here except that google made and marketed the thing first (I guess).

          • @dmbminaret: It’s an imitation that just happens to look the same, has the same name and has a “G” on it the same as the Google one.

            • @freefall101:

              It’s an imitation that just happens to look the same similar


              What's your point? That's what I said also.

              I can see the difference like night and day, but I can understand how someone could purchase an imitation thinking it is another product.

              that being said, it is not a replica or 'fake'. It is a different substandard product made to look similar to sell to the same consumer base without the marketing cost of a different product.

              I agree it is dubious, but sometimes the products are ok. Sometimes they even work better as they might be based on a linux operating system with more customizability than the locked down proprietary one.

              At the end of the day, it is buyer beware.

  • +5

    Thats more expensive than a chromecast 😷

  • +3

    Seller isn't Dick Smith, it's a third party seller

    Sold by Crazyshopping
    This item is located outside Australia

    • +1

      That excuse doesn't even fly in the US [1][2]

      It doesn't fly in the UK [3] nor here in AU [4].

      Amazon is liable.

      • -2

        But Dick Smith aren't the ones who claimed it was a Chromecast. A 3rd party did. You don't blame eBay if an eBay seller is selling fakes and you buy it. No you blame the seller.

        • -1
          • @deme: No I understand that but it wasn't Dick Smith themselves that sold the fake Chromecast. It was Crazyshopping.

            • +1

              @Clear: https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+3rd+party+seller+liab...
              Searches for "amazon 3rd party seller liability"

              Definition of third party
              1: a person other than the principals

              Definition of seller
              1: one that offers for sale

              Definition of liability
              1a: the quality or state of being liable

              Can you see how this is related to your claim?

              • -4

                @deme: Dick Smith did not sell the product. It was sold by Crazyshopping.

                • +4

                  @Clear: Either you are trolling or you just don't get it

                  • -3

                    @deme: No I get what you're saying but you don't get what I'm saying. This isn't about who is liable. This is about who sold the product.

                    Let's say there is a street market and someone at a stall sells counterfeit goods. Who sold the counterfeit goods? The seller or the one who is hosting the market? The seller.

                    Dick Smith themselves did not sell something counterfeit. It was not from their inventory. A 3rd party seller on their platform did.

                    • +4

                      @Clear: Let me break this down to show you why that analogy fails to be congruent.

                      Who did they pay/who took the money? Dick Smith.
                      Who did they interact with? Dick Smith.
                      If somebody says they want to sell drugs at a street market and the market organizers say ok. They have contributed to the offence.

                      • -4

                        @deme: I put a listing up on Facebook marketplace for drugs. Oh no the cops have come to my house but it's okay I'm not in trouble. I don't own Facebook so it wasn't me who was responsible. They're going to put an arrest warrant out for Zuckerberg since he owns Facebook and he's responsible for selling drugs.

                        Same could be said for all the stolen shit you see on there.

                        • +1

                          @Clear: You are purposely misinterpreting what is being said see below for the comment about eBay how it is different from this situation.

                          In the absurd case that you personally called Mark Zuckerberg to put up an ad for drugs then Mark Zuckerberg and yourself would likely face criminal charges.

                          Just because you directed an agent to act on your behalf doesn't absolve you of liability and nothing I stated above ever conveyed anything to the contrary.

                          Facebook Marketplace is not analogous to the situation with Dicksmith

                          • -1

                            @deme: Except I didn't call Mark up to put the ad for drugs. I put it up myself but since he owns Facebook he is responsible.

                            Just like how Crazyshopping aren't responsible for advertising, selling, shipping and misleading with their counterfeit product. Because according to you that is all Dick Smith's fault.

                            • +1

                              @Clear: I never stated dick Smith was liable to the exclusion of all others.
                              If you had read even just the first citation I gave this would be clear.

                              • @deme: Nah you accused me of being a troll. Considering you think I'm one I don't know why you're bothering to reply.

                                So again, Crazy are the ones who decided to sell the counterfeit product. It wasn't Dick Smith who had inventory of the stock and it wasn't them who sold it. It was Crazy.

                                • @Clear: We have now reached full circle. I suggest reading the documents I linked to

                                  • +1

                                    @deme: So it was not shipped and sold by Crazy? Ok looks like we need to report Dick Smith for pretending to have 3rd party sellers on their platform when clearly they don't.

                                  • +2


                                    I suggest reading the documents I linked to

                                    Did you?

                                    How are any of them even remotely relevant to the OP?

                • @Clear: What do you think "third party" means here?

                  • @freefall101: It says its shipped and sold by Crazy. Do they exist? Apparently not. I've been arguing that they do exist because if they do then they're a 3rd party seller on the platform.

        • Wrong.

          • @snooksy: Wrong? Ok so was it shipped and sold by Dick Smith? Despite saying it's sold by Crazyshopping.

            • @Clear: If it’s a counterfeit product or not fit for sale in Australia then it cannot be advertised on DS. Just as fake mobile phone and bags can’t be sold on eBay. The title says Chromecast. The buyer bought it based on the title. It is not a Chromecast so DS has a responsibility to remove the offending advertisement and compensate the customer. Just because you run a marketplace it doesn’t mean the rules don’t apply to you. Kogan takes a commission on the sale. Kogan doesn’t handle the goods but they are advertising the fake product.

              • @snooksy: Yes that's correct. Irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

              • @snooksy:

                If it’s a counterfeit product or not fit for sale in Australia then it cannot be advertised on DS

                Is it a counterfeit product though? It is of similar appearance and described for same use, but is not a replica.

                Just as fake mobile phone and bags can’t be sold on eBay.

                These are replicas with branding. That is counterfeit.

      • +2

        Amazon is liable.

        What does Amazon have to do with Kogan/dick Smith?

        • +1

          You don't think the c!aim of a dicksmith/kogan market place is similar to that of Amazon market place?

          • +2

            @deme: Yeah, but you keep saying Amazon, as if that's where op bought it.

          • @deme: Are you saying eBay is liable for this as well?

            • +2

              @IceCreamBandit: The situation with eBay is more nuanced as the vetting and knowledge eBay has of this sellers is significantly more limited.

              There have been numerous court cases around the world regarding eBay and counterfeiting and I suggest you read them if you're interested however I am of the opinion it does not apply to OP case

              • +1

                @deme: Thanks for the offer but I have better things to do on a Friday evening than read court cases about counterfeit goods.

                I think OP put it best in their first sentence. It's unfortunate but it's an important lesson to be more careful of what you're buying, and where you're buying it from.

                The actual thing was only a few dollars more, and marketplaces like this and Kogan should be avoided unless you're sure enough of the quality of the products that you don't need to interact with their customer service.

  • +8

    Contact the vendor. If they don't promptly agree to a refund, do a claim back. Chromecast is a registered trademark, making the goods counterfeit. Counterfeit goods are not grey imports. They are unlicensed fake goods and both Visa and MasterCard would usually accept this as a reason for a claim back. The goods delivered are not a described unless they are are a genuine product.

    • that's a good suggestion. I am trying to contact the seller but they don't make it easy

    • The goods delivered are not a described


      In the box
      Package included:
      1pc × Media Video Streamer Adapter

  • +1

    Miracast and Linux 3.04 in the description and this was okay….NOT.. NOT OKAY

  • +3
    1. Stop buying from Kogan.
    2. Chargeback right now with PayPal/Bank/Card etc.
    3. Counterfeit products may be illegal to possess, buy, sell, even mail. If Kogan asks you to mail it back, it doing so could constitute an offence.
    4. Report to crimestoppers.com.au as counterfeiting is a criminal offence. [1]
    5. Report to Fair Trading in your state
    6. Report to ACCC

    [1] https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ip-infringement/more-about-ip...

    • +1

      7 sit back and use your free counterfeit chromecast :)

    • There no way in the world I'd do a chargeback to Kogan and be barred .

      • Amazing

  • Don't Pay $158


  • some crazy shopping.

  • Are there reliable devices that support the Chromecast protocol (ie stream directly from source, not via the casting device), and Apple Airplay? Prefer a dongle-style device powered off a tv USB outlet.

    • +1

      No both are proprietary protocols

  • Dick Smith is no longer just an online store for Kogan. They allow any sellers to use their site. It's just like AliExpress or eBay now. Total pos. Sounds like you bought it off a seller, not Kogan direct.

    • Tell that to deme or quantamcat. They don't believe it's true and think it's really Kogan themselves.

      But you are right and that's the problem why fakes are existing. It's not completely obvious if you don't know where to look.

      • -1

        How many times have I said 3rd party seller in this thread?

        I even copied the dictionary definitions of it.

        You literally order and pay on https://www.dicksmith.com.au/da/order/update/

        This isn't OzBargain where you click a link to somewhere else nor Facebook Market Place where you pay the seller directly.

        Hell even Facebook has some liability when it comes to the comment its users post.

        I don't agree this is a good thing but I don't make the laws do I.

        So finally one last attempt with MS Paint to drill into you what 3rd party seller means.

        • +1

          publishers have responsibility for comments made on their Facebook pages

          Agree, your research skills are on par with your MS Paint skills.
          If ordering food from Doordash results in fatal food poisoning, which party does the life insurance company chase for liability.. Doordash, the restaurant, delivery driver, payment gateway?

          @OP - reach out to Dick he'll give you a fair go /s

        • Great so you finally admit that Crazyshopping supplied the fake Chromecast?

          • @Clear: I never stated otherwise.

            You claim Dick Smith has zero liability.

            • @deme: No I don't. From the get go I was saying they supplied it and you chose to argue that. From the get go I understood your points about liability and said so.

              It was you who chose to completely misinterpret what was said and throw accusations around when you didn't understand.

              • @Clear: Stop selectively picking phrases. If you look at the thread that was after I kept telling you they are the 3rd party seller.

                Do you think Dick Smith has no liability in this case? Yes or No?

              • @Clear: I've stated why you are wrong to suggest Dick Smith is indemnified.

                • @deme: Crazyshopping decided to sell a fake Chromecast. I've been saying that from the get go. You're trying to argue liability and that's not what I'm talking about at all.

                  I agree with the points about liability but that's not what I'm talking about.

                  Crazyshopping sold a fake Chromecast.

                  • @Clear:

                    I agree with the points about liability

                    Okay so you are saying Dick Smith shares some liability in this case?

                    • @deme: The fact that they don't have proper procedures in place to prevent counterfeits is an issue. Or perhaps it slipped through.

                      • @Clear:

                        Okay so you are saying Dick Smith shares some liability in this case?

                        You didn't answer

                        • -2

                          @deme: Not my problem.

                          • +2

                            @Clear: So you created a strawman to attack rather than addressing the actual statement in https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/11066418/redir

                            • -2

                              @deme: I'll need to see the straw man in an MS paint diagram. Does it have crows on it?

                              • @Clear: So now you resort to personal attacks?

                                • @deme: No insults have been thrown. You on the other hand decided to accuse me of being a troll. An accusation. That's not ok.

                                  • @Clear: I accused you of being a troll or not getting it, a reasonable claim based on the facts. You obviously don't get it.

                                    • @deme: Accusations are personal attacks and they're not tolerated here.

                                      I'll end it here myself. Feel free to carry on.

                                      • @Clear: Lets pull up the dictionary since you had trouble with 3rd party seller.

                                        Learn to pronounce
                                        a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

                                        Personal attack? Hardly given the context.

                                        You still haven't addressed the original claim that Dick Smith shares some liability but rather invented a strawman to attack.

                                        Do you think the Dick Smith has zero liability or not?

                                        • @deme: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/wiki/help:commenting_guidelines...

                                          Abuse, name calling and malicious comments directed at a person or a group of people are unacceptable.

                                          Please stop.

                                          • @Clear: There is not a single malicious comment, abuse nor name calling here.

                                            I stated Dick Smith shares some liability you attacked a strawman and now you are refusing to address the actual issue at hand.

                                            You've wasted my time and others like quantamcat here.

                                            Just answer the question: Do you think Dick Smith shares some liability in this case?

                                            • @deme: You accused me of being a troll. That's name calling.

                                              Enjoy your Saturday out in the sun and fresh air.

                                              • @Clear: Once again you've misquoted intentionally.


                                                Says "Either you are trolling or you just don't get it"

                                                Given the context that is very appropriate.

                                                You still haven't addressed the actual claim at hand, and continue not to, are you trolling?

                                                I note your comment is at -3 and mine is at +3

                                                • @deme: If it reaches -30 you get an award. Might be higher.

                                                  • @Clear: What's the point of this comment?
                                                    It doesn't even make sense as it is your comment that is -3 not mine.

                                                    Address the actual claim at hand please.

                                                    • +1

                                                      @deme: Jesus Christ this court case is adjourned. Please take off the barrister's wig and put down the briefcase of Googled precedents and defintitions.

                                                      edit: Haha this got reported for personal attack? I'll report this too so we can shut the bloody thread down.

                                                      • +1

                                                        @IceCreamBandit: Mine about the straw man was reported for private selling.

                                                        Disappointing you get reported for having different opinions. I think now it's a good opportunity for the mods to close the post, or just delete all our comments. Or both.

  • +3

    Damn.. where's Pam when you need a definitive arbitrary opinion in the sandbox 🍿

  • I feel scammed.

    You should feel equally scammed and stupid. Learn from your mistake and you can avoid feeling both in the future.

  • How did they post it? If it’s international parcel without signature, you can just claim you’ve never received it. Unless you already contacted them and they logged your request

  • +1

    There's a whole column of "customer care at the bottom of the page.


    contact us

    It's wasn't hard to find those pages.

Login or Join to leave a comment